My response, What is a god? I need no more than that not you nor anyone can actually get past that. Here is a meme.

My response, Ha ha, there is a meme.

“Begging the question. Ha ha 🙂“- Challenger

My response, What the offer of the term god “is” but an example of Begging the question. as the terms meaning assumes the initial point that the term god has a valid beginning, it does not. The empty term god is no more than the noise of words, talking unjustifiably, it is indeed a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the term god statement which is under examination to be true or contain a truth quality, to which it does not in any way.

“This is similar to the Omnipotent Paradox question: “Can God create a stone so heavy that He can’t lift?” If He can’t then He is not all powerful but asking God to create such a thing is an act that is contrary to His nature which is omnipotence because it is defined as doing all that is logically possible.“- Challenger

My response, If you cannot give a valid ontology of what is a “god” and limited only to what a god is, to even get me to entertain the god concept seriously. Until then I will not. It is the same vacuous waste of time as it would be to debate the existence of the sun.

“But… I’m the challenger. Lol I want to know your arguments out of curiosity.“- Challenger

My response, You find meaning in the term god I don’t I am busy deconstructing the entire evolution of religion the fantasies of gods are but a 12,000 years old abortion inspired by the agricultural revolution.

“I’m an agnostic (but a Christianised philosopher). Lol I evaluate all sides and see where it seems fit or more reasonable.“- Challenger

My response, So can you tell me what refutation you have done against flat earth theory? Are you going to spend real time in this? I did one blog (Flat Earth Mania: a debunked religious theory, given new life in the post truth world) I have a limited amount of time you wish to stay a valuer of the term god and yet can’t even support the term the entire god talk is a play in fantasy and feelings I am not interested in such things I have blogs on What I feel of which I know you have seen if not read. I am not like other atheists and have little to no desire to change that.

“The earth is a sphere. Alright 🙂“- Challenger

My response, See simple What is a god?

“Well the classical definition is a nonphysical, immaterial, omniscient, omnipresent, peefectly good being that transcends space and time. We measure the shadow, I don’t memorize but I think measure it through sticks Erastosthenes?”- Challenger

My response, The classical definition, is not a way to justify anything please validate every and any part of the classical definition and then how you can assert any of it? What is a god? Validate and please give meaning to the term god first, all ant every claim needs justification.

“I don’t honestly focus on definitions but go straight to Leibniz, Aquinas, Al Ghazali, etc. and check if their arguments are valid or not.“- Challenger

My response, Wait, nonphysical? Do you mean not of this reality?

“I don’t believe in verificationism(theory of knowledge that empirical knowledge is all there is). It is cyclic. Kant’s addition of synthetic a priori or intuition and Schopenhauer is useful.“- Challenger

My response, Again, what is immaterial? This is a meaningless term like god please validate this term before using it to add meaning to any other unjustified term like god?

“Yup, however I understand the common objection that timeless, immaterial, etc are self contradictory.“- Challenger

My response, So now you attack the asking of you to validate your unjustified and unvalidated term saying what that you don’t believe you have to? So then you admit you have no valid reason to even suggest the claim to the term god you are not able to validate your argument either it seems?

“So, if your method is no empirical evidence for God that’s why you’re an atheist. That’s not my whole basis. That’s just one method. 😉 Reason for example is a priori. Kantfor example refutes arguments for God’s existence in the Critique of Pure Reason without invoking Hume’s fork.“- Challenger

My response, What is a valid set of things to be assumed as the term god? And yes you have nothing no valid concept to start from and lacking all empirical evidence there is no reason to rationally even take seriously the unjustified nothing claims of great magic in a world completely devoid of magic. no empirical evidence for God. arguments for God? to me they are utterances of error as they only assume the term god of their own creating then without its validation at all they look for reason or naturalistic reality evident all around us as needing a deeper magic non-evident in any way but the deluded mind that they can then look and through the poetry of the rhetorician and the pushers of propaganda delude others of this intellectual farce of the empty god box term. Reason, for example, is a priori out of thin air and does nothing to of for the god term as the term comes as unjustified and self-dishonest assertion unvalidated or justified thus expresses a qualityless void as always. To assert that one is rational then can honestly claim any god is to put faith in myth or fantasy, not reality thus thinking pseudo-rationally as faith is evidence of feelings nothing more.

Religion is conspiracy theories of realty not worth believing in.

They are not harmless they are lies, full of pseudo-history and or pseudoscience.

I know most know what pseudoscience is so I will just explain pseudo history.

I hate pseudohistory just like I hate pseudoscience. They both deluded people.

The issues with religious Dogma-Propaganda is not limited to is a deity (goddess or god) but what the claimed beliefs or prejudices biases and laws/punishments attributed to them or a religion as a whole.

“Pseudohistory is a form of pseudoscholarship that attempts to distort or misrepresent the historical record, often using methods resembling those used in legitimate historical research. Pseudohistory frequently presents a big lie or sensational claims about historical facts which require the revision (re-writing) of the historical record. The related term cryptohistory applied to a pseudohistory based upon or derived from the superstitions inherent to occultism. Pseudohistory is related to pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology and usage of the terms may occasionally overlap. Pseudohistory is a pejorative term applied to a type of historical revisionism. It purports to be history, and uses ostensibly-scholarly methods and techniques (which in fact depart from standard historiographical conventions), but is inconsistent with established facts or with common sense and often involves sensational claims whose acceptance would significantly require rewriting accepted history.” ref

Pseudo-historic will meet at least one of the following criteria:

The work uncritically accepts myths and anecdotal evidence without skepticism.

It has a political, religious, or other ideological agenda.

It is not published in an academic journal or is otherwise not adequately peer reviewed.

The evidence for key facts supporting the work’s thesis is: selective and ignores contrary evidence or explains it away; or speculative; or controversial; or not correctly or adequately sourced; or interpreted in an unjustifiable way, or given undue weight; or taken out of context; or distorted, either accidentally or fraudulently.

Competing (and perhaps simpler) explanations or interpretations for the same set of facts, which have been peer-reviewed or are demonstrably valid and have been adequately sourced, are rejected or not addressed, contrary to the principle of Occam’s razor which favors a simpler and more prosaic explanation of the same facts.

For example, the work may rely on one or more conspiracy theories or “hidden-hand” explanations. ref

Faith is not generally Hope in religious beliefs.

It is not that religion can’t handle the truth, actually it just the opposite it does a fantastic Job of mishandling it, to the point that unfavorable truth and evidence is suspiciously questioned or not trusted and its outrageous myths, false accusations, and evidence lacking superstitions are believed without question and followed even when proven wrong. To me, some people think faith is hope, wrong not generally, it is often two things, faith is generally used as a belief state about something thus not a hope at all its an unjustified acceptance when used like this. The other often offered is faith as some kind of believed Evidence of something in reality which it is not anything more than a misunderstanding of what is evidence, it’s just in their mind it provides no support for things outside their mind thus not hope either other than hoping we accepted non-evidence as evidence. I do not respect faith, but I do respect people. Simply I value the sanctity of “human rights” and the dignity of every person to self-define their beliefs and do not attack people because of what they believe. I say attack thinking not people. I hardly ever tell people it is their opinion, rather I deconstruct it with logically pointed questions to explore if there is anything close to a valid justification or proof, if I wish to address their thinking. I love how some people, generally religious thinkers, will question the parameters of reality espousing a belief that reality is not fully known and that anything is possible including god, then claim logic which to me, is relatively dependent on a rather fixed reality to understand logic from nonlogic, to begin with. You can’t both doubt reality with limits and then claim logic that requires a reality with limits. Of course, no one is agnostic behaviorally. When we act in the world, we act as if there is a God or as if there is no God, so by default, we must make a choice, if not intellectually then at least behaviorally.

Damien, do you really feel that faith isn’t worth it for ANYONE?

Yes, faith as an acquisition of knowledge is not worth believing in.

In fact, to me all false beliefs lack worth to believe in as real, this should be reasonable if one wishes to hold true beliefs. Saying false beliefs or faith are valuable or helpful as if it is not also harmful is leaving out the picture of why it is not unjust to say it is unvaluable to me. As one could give many examples of its harm or promotion of future harm. I will ask do you really feel that pseudoscience or conspiracy theories aren’t worth it for ANYONE? To me, its no faith pseudoscience or conspiracy theories aren’t worth ANYONE believing in. Just as if someone told me the tooth-fairy was real. I would see this as unvaluable even if everyone started believing in the tooth-fairyism and made churches for this new faith. I would even become an anti-tooth-fairyist actively speaking out against tooth-fairyism especially if it used this belief or faith to oppressed unbelievers in this new tooth-fairyism.

“Isn’t funny, I’m pretty sure I’m your only fan, and I’m a intellectual Christian Philosopher, Don’t try to straw man my beliefs, there is no man in the clouds, but there are psychobiological structures that constantly look for a representation of “God” or a psychological evaluation of traits that have been adapted and evolved to suit the pragmatic needs of humanity. If we work together, we need common goals, God is that, you arguing the definition of God used by dumb Southerners, you are making fun of people for being born into poor areas, with horrible schools, you are making fun of old people who lived on farms doing backbreaking work all day for low pay, like do you ever consider the context, or do spendto much spouting a makeshift psuedoreligion in the form of phillosophical dominance, especially because you don’t debate people in real life, where are your lectures? Where is your book? I wouldn’t care about you being self righteous if you weren’t a lazy communist, always looking for a boogie man that doesn’t exist.” – Challenger #2

My response, My only fan? You are a Christian philosopher comedian as I have thousands of fans. And are you claiming that the term god stands for a myth or is it referencing so realistic thing?

“Applied Philosophy. I was being genuine, I like your points tho I may semantically disagree, I meant to say isn’t it funny.” – Challenger #2

“God would be the universe that we are born in, The Father, You as the “child” of God with infinite potential to overcome anything with miracles like science and logic, and the knowledge and ideas that you will leave, which will be the holy spirit that remains eternal #WeAreGods.” – Challenger #2

My response, How can you validate your claim that the universe is or should be accurately labeled under the term god? So you saying your conception of what you think a god could be that is magic-less and mind-less? What truth standard do you use? I mainly use the correspondence theory of truth. The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other. It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined solely by how it relates to a reality; that is, by whether it accurately describes that reality. As Aristotle claims in his Metaphysics: “To say that that which is, is not, and that which is not, is, is a falsehood; therefore, to say that which is, is, and that which is not, is not, is true”.

God is the Trinity, three things, that are all one, but three things at the same time, The father, is the universe that we occupy, The son/daughter is us, being born into the universe by the universe, and our holy spirit is communication, science and magic are words that mean the same thing. I think my definition far meets your criteria. But this may all be lost in the midst of semantics, but I take solace in knowing that we are just a couple steps in a universal hegelian dialectic. “ – Challenger #2

Saying “god is” you still have not validated your justification for the term god, to begin with. You made and continue to make global empty assertions. But I still wanted to know about the term god? What is a god? What is a god is not answered by unjustified assumptions and assertions? But what is a god and how can you give this term meaning to assess? What knowledge standard do you have if you can make assertions after assertions lacking in accuracy or reliability? What is a god will be our new quest to reconnect you to a philosophy of reason not the excuses from Religion. What is a god and how honestly can you confirm knowledge of something like this? What is your epistemology? As you know Epistemology addresses the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. I love using ontology (“science of being”) questions to explore or exposes errors in Thinking. What is your Evidence of something supernatural to even think such a thing could be assumed in reality?

“Ontology involves the philosophical study of being in general, or of what applies neutrally to everything that is real and fundamental concepts—e.g., being, existence, identity, essence, possibility, part, one, object, property, relation, fact, and the world. The fundamental question, of course, has the form, “Are there Xs?” or “Do Xs exist?” Negative answers to the fundamental question are accompanied by attempts to explain away any appearances to the effect that there are such things. If the question is answered affirmatively, there are subsequent questions. Do Xs exist independently of minds and languages (objectively), or do they depend on them in some way (subjectively or intersubjectively)? Are they discovered or created? Are they basic, irreducible constituents of reality, or can they be reduced to others?”ref